Appeal No. 2004-0573
Application No. 09/406,017
Appellants argue that nothing in the portions of Rostoker cited by the examiner
describe a “monitor declaration” as disclosed in the instant disclosure. (Brief at page
17.) While we agree that those sections of the text cited by the examiner do not clearly
disclose a “declaration,” we find that Figure 29 cited by the examiner and its associated
description at columns 43 ( and Figures 30-32 and column 44 et seq.) disclose the use
of C++ programming which would generally suggest the use of such declarations for
variables and portions of object oriented programming. Therefore, we find that
Rostoker fairly suggests the use of a monitor declaration as broadly recited in the
language of independent claim 1.
Appellants argue that Rostoker does not teach “one or more logic expressions
that the monitor uses to evaluate whether the design verification event has occurred so
that the monitor can return a status event” as recited in independent claim 1. Appellants
dispute that the analysis of the logic is not monitoring a simulation, but appellants do not
identify any specific definition in the specification of the limitation or line of reasoning
beyond that Rostoker does not teach a “simulation monitor” which we have discussed
above and not found persuasive. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
With respect to appellants’ arguments that Rostoker and Rajan do not teach
signal declarations and bus declarations (brief at pages 18-20), we find that the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007